Scientology is all bad

[PirateAndBum]

Yep. Sentiments like that are nasty and also seem to imply that the person expressing them knows better and can show the way.

I've said it before- I distrust and mislike pundits. I cannot fucking stand Doprah Winfrey, The View, Dr Phil, Dr Oz, Dr Drew-- I know that sometimes they say things that are correct or whatever- but there's this legion of pundits with the simple minded trailing them going baaa baaa. Just hate that.

And I don't like it when I see it in the critic's scene, and after leaving a cult that was chockful of that, I sure don't want to see it among people who should know better.

Some of my ex member pals who I see IRL are into the FZ. Most are not. The ones who are into the FZ are decent, discreet, pleasant and levelheaded individuals. My husband's an Indie and I gotta tell you- he stands head and shoulders above a number of people I know and I definitely include some people from the critic's scene there.

People are people. Scn doesn't confer superiority. I think that's where the disconnect is. I think critics who know damn well Scn doesn't make a being superior are still buying into that. On some level, some of these people are still buying into Hubbard's fucking bullshit, expecting Scn'ists to be better than everyone else and when the Indies and FZers they meet (or didn't bother to meet but spent a lot of time bitching and moaning about and slandering and libelling) are obviously fallible human beings, not homo novises or anything else, they get mad and start saying how fucked up those people are.

Scn does not deliver what it's promised. Not even close. CofS members are deluded culties and they constantly morally compromise themselves to varying degrees and extents- some greatly. Non CofS Scn'ists are just regular people and aren't superior.

That is no reason to say that non CofS Scn'ists are more fucked up than the rest of us. They aren't superior specimens of spiritual being(s)- they're just people and that means that some are shitheads, some are crazy, some are mean, some are wise, insightful and altruistic and most fall smack dab in the middle.

Just like everyone else on this thread.

Personally, I'd take my husband's advice before I'd take advice from an ESMB pundit with an axe to grind.

I thought about just letting this go by but...

WTF are you talking about Claire? This BS that Scientology doesn't make you a better person than those that do not avail themselves of its tech. What then IS a person doing being a Scio may I ask? Following the golden rule? Applying ethics? Using TRs and touch assists? If it doesn't make you better (superior) then why the hell are they Scientologists? Just fans of space opera, past lives and OOBE?

Scientologist are doing Scientology to reach higher state of awareness - OT if you will. Don't go trying to paint this another way cause you aren't talking to Christians here. Indy/FZ Scios are working on going up the Bridge - WHY? So they can be better than the rest of the normal run of the mill fucked up people walking the face of this planet. That is a FACT. Why you would try to paint it some other way is beyond me. Is Scientology just some self-help or do gooder philosophy in your mind?

Scios that have gone up the Bridge ARE supposed to be superior specimens. Yup, they are. Saying that that's just Hubbard's BS is really not cool. It isn't BS to a Scio. So don't blame critics for using a standard that Scios themselves hold. Scientology is about making the able more able; it's about changing conditions in life; it's the way out of the trap, do I need to go on? You aren't going to try and tell me that that's just Hubbard BS to a FZ/Indy Scio are you? Your Husband is doing the Bridge for what reason, he ain't got nothing better to do with his time?

No they aren't perfect people. That's a sore point. It's a score one for the critic. You want to take back that score by changing the rules, well sorry, you don't get to do a rewrite of what the hell Scientology is supposed to do for a person just so you can shut-up some critics.

The issue that some people have here is that Terril is a Scn tech pusher, and that for those that are trying to extract their heads from the cult it isn't helpful to have sweet Terril cooing in their ears trying to draw them into the FZ. That's their problem isn't it. This board is open to all to express their opinions. So those that feel Scn has its merits are free to speak their mind.

There are no pundits here. Veda posts very helpful data. Data that can really help a person understand WTF Hubbard was up to. So he's intolerant of MAB and Terril. So are a lot of other people on this board. I like Veda. I like MAB. Mark has made his position on the Co$ and Hubbard pretty clear. That Veda can't accept that, oh well, such is life. MAB at the least gives Veda an excuse to post his info

 

[Claire Swazey]

I thought about just letting this go by but...

WTF are you talking about Claire? This BS that Scientology doesn't make you a better person than those that do not avail themselves of its tech. What then IS a person doing being a Scio may I ask? Following the golden rule? Applying ethics? Using TRs and touch assists? If it doesn't make you better (superior) then why the hell are they Scientologists? Just fans of space opera, past lives and OOBE?

Scientologist are doing Scientology to reach higher state of awareness - OT if you will. Don't go trying to paint this another way cause you aren't talking to Christians here. Indy/FZ Scios are working on going up the Bridge - WHY? So they can be better than the rest of the normal run of the mill fucked up people walking the face of this planet. That is a FACT. Why you would try to paint it some other way is beyond me. Is Scientology just some self-help or do gooder philosophy in your mind?

Scios that have gone up the Bridge ARE supposed to be superior specimens. Yup, they are. Saying that that's just Hubbard's BS is really not cool. It isn't BS to a Scio. So don't blame critics for using a standard that Scios themselves hold. Scientology is about making the able more able; it's about changing conditions in life; it's the way out of the trap, do I need to go on? You aren't going to try and tell me that that's just Hubbard BS to a FZ/Indy Scio are you? Your Husband is doing the Bridge for what reason, he ain't got nothing better to do with his time?

No they aren't perfect people. That's a sore point. It's a score one for the critic. You want to take back that score by changing the rules, well sorry, you don't get to do a rewrite of what the hell Scientology is supposed to do for a person just so you can shut-up some critics.

The issue that some people have here is that Terril is a Scn tech pusher, and that for those that are trying to extract their heads from the cult it isn't helpful to have sweet Terril cooing in their ears trying to draw them into the FZ. That's their problem isn't it. This board is open to all to express their opinions. So those that feel Scn has its merits are free to speak their mind.

There are no pundits here. Veda posts very helpful data. Data that can really help a person understand WTF Hubbard was up to. So he's intolerant of MAB and Terril. So are a lot of other people on this board. I like Veda. I like MAB. Mark has made his position on the Co$ and Hubbard pretty clear. That Veda can't accept that, oh well, such is life. MAB at the least gives Veda an excuse to post his info

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, bubbeleh, but Scn doesn't deliver what it promises.

There are lots of people who believe in stuff that isn't as good - or is good at all- as they think it is. They think it is, though.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Yep. Sentiments like that are nasty and also seem to imply that the person expressing them knows better and can show the way.

I've said it before- I distrust and mislike pundits. I cannot fucking stand Doprah Winfrey, The View, Dr Phil, Dr Oz, Dr Drew-- I know that sometimes they say things that are correct or whatever- but there's this legion of pundits with the simple minded trailing them going baaa baaa. Just hate that.

And I don't like it when I see it in the critic's scene, and after leaving a cult that was chockful of that, I sure don't want to see it among people who should know better.

Some of my ex member pals who I see IRL are into the FZ. Most are not. The ones who are into the FZ are decent, discreet, pleasant and levelheaded individuals. My husband's an Indie and I gotta tell you- he stands head and shoulders above a number of people I know and I definitely include some people from the critic's scene there.

People are people. Scn doesn't confer superiority. I think that's where the disconnect is. I think critics who know damn well Scn doesn't make a being superior are still buying into that. On some level, some of these people are still buying into Hubbard's fucking bullshit, expecting Scn'ists to be better than everyone else and when the Indies and FZers they meet (or didn't bother to meet but spent a lot of time bitching and moaning about and slandering and libelling) are obviously fallible human beings, not homo novises or anything else, they get mad and start saying how fucked up those people are.

Scn does not deliver what it's promised. Not even close. CofS members are deluded culties and they constantly morally compromise themselves to varying degrees and extents- some greatly. Non CofS Scn'ists are just regular people and aren't superior.

That is no reason to say that non CofS Scn'ists are more fucked up than the rest of us. They aren't superior specimens of spiritual being(s)- they're just people and that means that some are shitheads, some are crazy, some are mean, some are wise, insightful and altruistic and most fall smack dab in the middle.

Just like everyone else on this thread.

Personally, I'd take my husband's advice before I'd take advice from an ESMB pundit with an axe to grind.

Bump. One of my best posts and I'm stickin' with it.

The heck with punditry and with painting non CofS Scn'ists as being worthy of pity or scorn or that such are insane just because they are into Scn after leaving CofS. It's very easy to make blanket statements about people one has not met.

Scn'ists run the gamit of the human condition from levelheaded and wise to batshit crazy and stupid- just like the rest of humanity. Blind spots they have- and so do the rest of us.

 

[PirateAndBum]

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, bubbeleh, but Scn doesn't deliver what it promises.

There are lots of people who believe in stuff that isn't as good - or is good at all- as they think it is. They think it is, though.


from your orig post: Non CofS Scn'ists are just regular people and aren't superior.

Tisn't my bubble. T'is the bubble of non Co$ Scios. Saying it isn't so doesn't make it so.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Tisn't my bubble. T'is the bubble of non Co$ Scios. Saying it isn't so doesn't make it so.

Oh, ok.Then you have no problem with my saying Scn doesn't deliver what it promises. In which case, you need not have bothered at all with the post you wrote a little while ago to me.

Kewl.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... I was raised in the south, and taught from an early age to keep the peace, so from my perspective it's often better to address a topic than a person. It can also be easier to make your points without having to browbeat a specific person. ... .

It's also more valid intellectually. Targeting individuals rather than ideas is what constitutes the argumentum ad hominem, not simply insults as many here mistakenly believe.

Making an argument about a person rather than a topic is a clear indication that a person actually has nothing of value to contribute to a discussion.

... .I suppose it's not only or exclusively a Scientology trait to demand names and time,place, form and event, but that's where I first encountered it and I don't see that I'll get past that association any time soon. It creeps me out. ...

It's also an old journalist mnemonic; who, what, when, where, why, how. The basic elements which need to be included in any factual report.


Mark A. Baker

 

[PirateAndBum]

Oh, ok.Then you have no problem with my saying Scn doesn't deliver what it promises. In which case, you need not have bothered at all with the post you wrote a little while ago to me.

Kewl.

Yeah, you shared your opinions. Fine. However, those are not the opinions of Scientologists. The critics come up against the Scios beliefs as I outlined, there is no disconnect.

You are trying to spin the FZ/indy's as somehow different than Co$ Scios and that's BS:

CofS members are deluded culties and they constantly morally compromise themselves to varying degrees and extents- some greatly. Non CofS Scn'ists are just regular people and aren't superior.

FZ/Indy's are just regular wog-like folk huh? Yeah right.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

It's also more valid intellectually. Targeting individuals rather than ideas is what constitutes the argumentum ad hominem, not simply insults as many here mistakenly believe.

Making an argument about a person rather than a topic is a clear indication that a person actually has nothing of value to contribute to a discussion.

Mark A. Baker

Still delivering your endless sermons about ad hominem?

What is remarkable is that anyone still has a blind spot big enough to seriously listen to your morality lectures on that subject--considering that ad hominem comments so abundantly populate your previous 10 thousand posts.

Is it ad hominem to observe that their blind spots combined with your own constitute a new discovery in the field of illogical fallacies that doesn't even yet have scientific research, clinical studies or even a proper name?

Let's at least identify the phenomenon. . .

How about a Double-Blindspot Study?

 

[PirateAndBum]

<snip>
How about a Double-Blindspot Study?

Who's that clown you're following HH? (well it does resemble your avatar...)



Anyway, they're available for the study. How much is it paying?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Who's that clown you're following HH? (well it does resemble your avatar...)



Anyway, they're available for the study. How much is it paying?

And now for some axiomatic self-evident Alter-Wasness. . . ​

 

[Jquepublic]

I trust that at some level you are engaged in business or active employment or the use of money.

Without specifics you would not get any.

Specifics is how life works when you get in the trenches in any area of life where results matter. Medicine. Science. Mathematics. Humanities. Arts. Finance. Justice. Communication itself.

HUSBAND: What specifically did you mean when you said you were going on a trip to Las Vegas with "someone" this weekend?

WIFE: "I am a little unsettled when I start seeing demands for specifics, it completely throws me into memories of security checks and interrogations."


Ummm, I don't think that would end well.

Do we really need more examples? LOL

Comepletely different context. I'm speaking of the action of addressing the topic instead of the person when something is out of joint.

Re: my unease at the repeated demands for specifics: I'm not allowed to have my own psychological scarring from the cult? I think I did a pretty good job of explaining my reaction and the source of it. I'm surprised to see what FEELS like an attempt to make me wrong for it. It is what I feel, and if I feel like mentioning it again, bet your sweet ass that I will.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Comepletely different context. I'm speaking of the action of addressing the topic instead of the person when something is out of joint.

Re: my unease at the repeated demands for specifics: I'm not allowed to have my own psychological scarring from the cult? I think I did a pretty good job of explaining my reaction and the source of it. I'm surprised to see what FEELS like an attempt to make me wrong for it. It is what I feel, and if I feel like mentioning it again, bet your sweet ass that I will.

What you are characterizing as "making you wrong" is what others term as disagreement or opinion.

Example: A couple days ago I called in the top scientists, engineers, physicists, doctors and designers of a new medical technology that my company has been developing for several years. We had some decisions to make on functions, specifications, FDA issues and patents. Our top two visionaries (and geniuses) had major disagreements and could "prove" the other was mistaken on some rather complex issues of optics and the behavior of light. They went at it (as usual) in a brilliant tour de force of mastery that ping-ponged back and forth--but without unproductive "hostility "or "make wrong". They were, in truth, not actually hostile as it might have appeared--they were simply passionate to an extreme level. Left to themselves a few moments, they would, however, have possibly stormed out, lol. However they were, in fact, proving each other wrong every step of the way. I put these two on the same R&D project over two years ago although they had inherently different methods of approach to problem solving and innovation--on top of their respective mastery of different but related scientific disciplines. The outcome, as usual, was that yet new IP was generated and heralded as a breakthrough. I never allowed them to devolve into personal histrionics and proprietary warfare, although they had each advised me over the years that it was "impossible" for them to work with the other for reasons they could quite eloquently detail. I simply patched up the glitches and got them back to a their phenomenally successful collaboration and, thus far over 100 patent claims have been filed.

The point, here, is that characterizing it as "make wrong" is not taking into account the oft-times phenomenal benefits that arise out of disagreement if it is allowed to run its course.

I disagreed with you. It's not the end of the world. Usually it is a lot better to let these things play out and see where it leads to.

The concept of "make wrong" is something that evolved out of the madness of L. Ron Hubbard and was used as a mechanism for stopping people from discussing Scientology. I don't see it as a valuable tool.

I harbor no animosity for you. I simply have a different opinion.

 

[Bill]

Comepletely different context. I'm speaking of the action of addressing the topic instead of the person when something is out of joint.

Re: my unease at the repeated demands for specifics: I'm not allowed to have my own psychological scarring from the cult? I think I did a pretty good job of explaining my reaction and the source of it. I'm surprised to see what FEELS like an attempt to make me wrong for it. It is what I feel, and if I feel like mentioning it again, bet your sweet ass that I will.

I believe we are talking about two very different things. I don't know that anyone is asking for specifics about your experiences in the cult. That would definitely be unacceptable. Not only would that potentially strip away any anonymity but, as you say, a person needs to deal with their experiences in their own time, in their own way.

I know what I was talking about was when a person on this forum is complaining about their treatment on this forum. If they don't provide specifics - who said what - nothing can be done about it. I'm not talking about "report to moderators", I'm saying that, IF a person wants to work to resolve the situation, they should be specific so the person who upset them can explain, modify, correct, apologise or defend their post.

If only a generality is given, "people aren't nice to me!", then nothing can be done to correct -- if correction is called for. General whining does not help anyone but just tends to "make everybody wrong".

That's what I mean when I say complaints should be specific or shouldn't be made at all.

But that's just me.

Bill

 

[Claire Swazey]

Yeah, you shared your opinions. Fine. However, those are not the opinions of Scientologists. The critics come up against the Scios beliefs as I outlined, there is no disconnect.

You are trying to spin the FZ/indy's as somehow different than Co$ Scios and that's BS:



FZ/Indy's are just regular wog-like folk huh? Yeah right.

I think people who picket CofS- as quite a few FZers and Indies do- and who laugh at the cult and who criticize Hubbard- again, as quite a few non CofS Scn'ists do- who don't do RPFing, high prices, cheerfully ignore large segments of Scn policy, who often create their own processes- can hardly be said to not be "somehow different from Cof$ Scios".

When's the last time you saw a churchie picketing? Or publicly criticizing Hubbard?

And you guys all know that non CofS Scn'ists do what I've described. You've seen pix, you've seen it on the board.

So the only thing left is that they are interested in an ology- or, rather, portions of it- that a number of people here think they shouldn't be. I could get behind that and be cool with it were it not for the insanely stupid, misinformed and malicious comment that these people are messed up and have problems just because of that when I happen to be married to an indie and have friends who are and they are nothing like you and Veda describe.

So it then becomes evident to me that what's going on here is that non CofS Scn'ists are resented and not forgiven by some people because they weren't what OTs are claimed to be and they aren't any different than the rest of us.

This being the case, then, it seems to me that some of you are still buying into the myth that Hubbard created and are expecting people to actually have OT powers.

I'm being kind. Were I not, the only other conclusions available given the facts I state above about non CofS Scn'ists are stupidity and bigotry on the part of those writing bullshit like the comment that they're just like CofS members and the comment that they're oh so damaged and whatnot.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Still delivering your endless sermons about ad hominem?

What is remarkable is that anyone still has a blind spot big enough to seriously listen to your morality lectures on that subject--considering that ad hominem comments so abundantly populate your previous 10 thousand posts.

Is it ad hominem to observe that their blind spots combined with your own constitute a new discovery in the field of illogical fallacies that doesn't even yet have scientific research, clinical studies or even a proper name?

Let's at least identify the phenomenon. . .

How about a Double-Blindspot Study?

Of course some people wouldn't want to listen to that. Because they're guilty of it.

 

[PirateAndBum]

<snip>
This being the case, then, it seems to me that some of you are still buying into the myth that Hubbard created and are expecting people to actually have OT powers.

It's not that critics still buy into it. The Scios still buy into it. You may not buy into it but they sure do.

So you are telling me that your Husband does not think that a Clear can be made? That being a Clear has no advantage over not being Clear? Is this what you are trying to say? That doing the Bridge doesn't do anything for you really? That there is no such thing as the state of OT?

You know the Indy/FZ is not well represented here (in terms of numbers). The very few people that post are extraordinary. I don't attack MAB. I live in the FringeZone. I happen to believe that "tech" can help a person, that higher states of awareness are possible, but the "Bridge" doesn't cut it. I don't attack people for believing such things, others might. I criticize Hubbard and his messes.

I called you out on your posting about this "superior" bit. Go read Marty's blog again - those are Indy Scios and I assure you there are a bunch of people there that are feeling quite superior and smug in there faith.

Scios in or out have the same goal - to go free, to become OT. Many still want to save the planet (go ask Loyal Officer Rey Robles if you don't believe me.)

Add: On reflection, I think Hubbardites is a better term. There are those like MAB that are not Hubbardites. I don't know what your Hubby is as he doesn't post here. Maybe he's not a Hubbardite. But there is a preponderance of Hubbardites in the FZ/Indy movements.

 

[Veda]

From top to bottom:

Operating Thetan Scientologists

Pre-Operating Thetan Scientologists

Clear Scientologists

Homo Novis Scientologists

Raw meat Scientologists

Wogs (non-Scientology humanoids) stalled at non-Scientology Wog level, a.k.a. Homo Saps

Ex Scientologists, a.k.a. "Failed Scientologists," includes "ARC broken," etc. cases, plus "NCG" cases, plus a very tiny percentage were not "thetans" to begin with.

DBs

BTs

SPs

-snip-

bigotry

-snip-

 

[Claire Swazey]

It's not that critics still buy into it. The Scios still buy into it. You may not buy into it but they sure do.

So you are telling me that your Husband does not think that a Clear can be made? That being a Clear has no advantage over not being Clear? Is this what you are trying to say? That doing the Bridge doesn't do anything for you really? That there is no such thing as the state of OT?

You know the Indy/FZ is not well represented here (in terms of numbers). The very few people that post are extraordinary. I don't attack MAB. I live in the FringeZone. I happen to believe that "tech" can help a person, that higher states of awareness are possible, but the "Bridge" doesn't cut it. I don't attack people for believing such things, others might. I criticize Hubbard and his messes.

I called you out on your posting about this "superior" bit. Go read Marty's blog again - those are Indy Scios and I assure you there are a bunch of people there that are feeling quite superior and smug in there faith.

Scios in or out have the same goal - to go free, to become OT. Many still want to save the planet (go ask Rey Robles if you don't believe me.)

I already said that Scn doesn't confer superiority. But I think that critics are angry that heretical Scn'ists think that advanced states may be possible and aren't forgiving them for that.

It very much appears that it's what my husband would call an "ARC break". So why on earth would people be taking it so personally were they not emotionally invested therein?

This link may explain my position moar:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...nest-non-CofS-Scn-ists-different-from-Cof-ers

 

[Infinite]

Comepletely different context. I'm speaking of the action of addressing the topic instead of the person when something is out of joint.

What happens when the topic is the person but the one raising the issue is seeking to achieve a wider agenda by being deliberately obtuse? ; )

Re: my unease at the repeated demands for specifics: I'm not allowed to have my own psychological scarring from the cult? I think I did a pretty good job of explaining my reaction and the source of it. I'm surprised to see what FEELS like an attempt to make me wrong for it. It is what I feel, and if I feel like mentioning it again, bet your sweet ass that I will.

I'm not jumping in here to have a go or troll or anything untoward. I'd like to address your comment about how you feel as if you are being "made wrong". See, its not YOU who is being made wrong, it is a disagreement about a statement you made. Often, statements I make are wrong and a disagreement ensues and I learn how my mistake is wrong (sometimes, even, it turns out I'm correct) - but all the time the disagreement is active, I know it is the statement which is being examined, and not me personally. You saw me question someone here about their use of a Scientology term - "overts of magnitude" or something - well, now I'm doing it again, this time with the "make me wrong" phrase. What does that mean? Does it mean that if someone disagrees with something you say they are actually disagreeing with you as a person? No. Of course not.

Another cult hang-over I've noticed is a fear of conflict - (except, of course, when conflict is part of some "pan-determined" attempt to achieve some pre-arranged "effect") - and I wonder if this stems from the Scientology conditioning in regards to avoiding "entheta" or "down-tone" exchanges. It could even, I guess, plug into the residual nervous fear that some Exes carry around as a result of being "face ripped" in some "severe reality adjustment" encounters they had with "superiors" in the cult. If conflict here does make you nervous, walk away from the computer and look back at it - that's all it is, a computer. No need to be nervous, no need to lash out or cave in, and always remember the LOLs. Sure, this stuff can be srs bizniss but no one at ESMB hates you or wants you to be wrong or is going to force you to believe or say or do anything. That happens in meat world - this, the internet, is where we thrash out the ideas, test theories, poke and tease each other, and share information.

Anyhow, don't mind me. Just sort of thinking out loud and hoping that you are not hurting. Also, I wanted to let you know that while you and I have had some animated dialogue ourselves, I have become somewhat enamoured. I have a great affection for feisty women who say it like it is, even though I don't agree all the time. What a sad arse, dead end world it would be if everyone agreed with everyone. We'd still be scared of falling of the edge of the planet - and the Sun would revolve around Earth.

 

[PirateAndBum]

I already said that Scn doesn't confer superiority. But I think that critics are angry that heretical Scn'ists think that advanced states may be possible and aren't forgiving them for that.

It very much appears that it's what my husband would call an "ARC break". So why on earth would people be taking it so personally were they not emotionally invested therein?

This link may explain my position moar:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...nest-non-CofS-Scn-ists-different-from-Cof-ers

Yes, a huge upset. I see it very clearly. There is also the matter of people being afraid of "OT" abilities. Scares the shit out of some, perhaps only subconsciously.